“Do you still kill mosquitoes?” Since Roos Vonk decided to become a vegetarian at the age of fourteen, she has regularly heard such comments. For years she wondered where those nasty comments came from. And why we sometimes make them ourselves. Because now and then even committed vegetarians or environmentalists experience others in the green movement as killjoys or complainers who insist on making the same point over and over. After reading a study from Stanford University on moral objectors (people who refuse to engage in immoral behaviour), Vonk realised that there is a simple explanation for this.
Naive do-gooders
Why are moralisers seen as annoying?
Vonk: “In the first place, because sometimes they are annoying. They can be very adamant and act like they alone are in possession of the truth. Some vegans respond to any problem with 'go vegan', as if that could solve everything. As a flexinist – a vegetarian on the way to veganism – even I can be annoyed by this [Professor Vonk regularly calls carnivores and vegans to account on Twitter, ed.]. They seem to feel superior. Such people are quickly labelled as a gutmensch or naive do-gooder.”
“Of course, that stereotypical image is not always correct. Even when we just express ourselves as a vegetarian or climate activist, without judging the choices and behaviours of others, we are seen as stubborn, hypersensitive or unworldly. Research has shown that even if vegans or activists do not pass judgement on others, it is still perceived that way. That has everything to do with the recipient of that message. In short, the message is in the eye of the beholder. Based on controlled experiments, Researchers at Stanford University found that people in such situations feel that they are being judged implicitly. When someone makes a racist joke during a meeting, the person who calls the joker to account is labelled as a killjoy. This is because he puts the others, who have said nothing, to shame; the choice to speak up has a moral connotation. This moral objector is experienced as stating implicitly that he is morally superior. If people no longer eat meat for health reasons, then there is nothing to worry about.”
“Ironically, people who are annoyed by moral objectors actually agree with them. They regard the behaviour of moral objectors as morally better. People consider themselves to have above-average morals. When others explicitly or implicitly point out our moral shortcomings, our self-image is severely damaged. To repair our self-image, we discount the arguments of a moral objector. This is the reason for reactions such as: ‘the climate change protesters are being incited by their parents’, ‘there is a whole conspiracy behind it’ or ‘they really just want to miss school for a day’.”
So the message itself is not being shot down?
“Yes, it is, but they ‘shoot the messenger’ before they shoot the message. Moral objectors often have the opposite effect of what they intended. People with a guilty conscience will eventually turn away from those values, in order to justify their own behaviour. Participants in an experiment who were told that others were requesting objective information about recycled textiles were then less willing to sign the Think Green Pledge themselves, a commitment to buy more sustainable products. So the reverse effect should not be underestimated.”
Show empathy
How can you counter that effect?
“Make sure the person you want to persuade likes you. Show empathy, look for the similarities between your situations and try to find common ground so that your conversation partner thinks: ‘Hey, I can do that too.’ Also, emphasise what the person is already doing right and don't point out their possible mistakes. You have to prevent people from thinking that you are judging them.”
“Another tip? Choose your battles. As a vegetarian, you probably cannot persuade die-hard carnivores to stop eating meat, but you can perhaps influence people who are already eating less meat to take the next step. This only works if your discussion partner takes a less defensive attitude and is open to it.”
To what extent are facts and figures useful in such discussions?
“They won't help you. For example, anyone can find out what impact fast fashion has on the environment. Most people deliberately choose to remain in the dark. In this way, they do not have to account for their choices. It is important that people are of good will, that they become interested. You achieve that by building a good relationship with them and inspiring them.”
Fake news
What effect do alarming messages in the media have? Why don't they wake up the population?
“It may be a wake-up call, but such apocalyptic messages often miss their mark. If people find a problem too threatening and don't know what to do about it, they will deny it and see it as fake news. Many people see the actions against climate change as a threat to their privileged position in society. It is mainly white conservative men who fear that they will lose their privileges. We see that the most in the United States, with the Trump voters. But climate measures are also provoking resistance in Europe; look at the yellow vests movement. In addition, alarming messages sometimes cause people to close their eyes to the problem. They pass the responsibility on to the government. Their logic is that if the government doesn’t sound the alarm, then the problem can’t be that serious.”
If such messages backfire, should we stop protesting?
“No, because those protests send a strong signal to the government and big business. The more protesters there are on the street, the more pressure there is on government and business to take ambitious measures.”
Feasible alternatives and freedom of choice
Do you have any tips for governments? How should they communicate with the population?
“Climate change is a complex problem and for some it feels far away from their daily concerns. That is why it is advisable to offer people concrete guidance on how to become committed. Aim for small, realistic steps, things that people can do as part of a small community in their own neighbourhood, school or business. It is important to offer concrete, feasible alternatives. If you tell people that they can do their part by taking the train more often, then make sure that public transport is an attractive alternative.”
Which measures are most efficient from the perspective of social psychology: abolish short-haul flights or impose a carbon tax?
“You should not deprive people of their freedom of choice. Because then they revolt. People want to change, but they don't want to be forced to change. With a flying tax or meat tax you shift the costs to the polluter and send a signal: They are polluting and pollution costs money.”
Yes we can
In Belgium, local residents are increasingly protesting future wind farms. How should the government deal with such protests?
“A few months ago, thousands of Dutch farmers protested against the restrictions the government wanted to introduce to tackle nitrogen emissions. Prime Minister Rutte then spoke of a ‘terrible measure’. He thus created space for protest without intending to. The whole problem should have been framed in a different way. The government should have said those measures are being taken to safeguard our future. The benefits were underplayed.”
“At such times you have to show transformational leadership. President Obama’s ‘Yes we can’ speech is a textbook example of this leadership. He motivated the population by sketching a positive picture of the future, instead of focusing on the negative aspects.”
Meatless Mondays
How can businesses motivate their employees to live more sustainably?
“Employees have to decide for themselves to take that step, but you have to entice them to do so. That's why Meat-Free Mondays in the company canteen are not always a good idea [Meat-Free Monday is an initiative of Paul McCartney to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meatless Monday was introduced in many Dutch ministries in 2014, ed.]. You take away freedom of choice and people become stubborn. Offering more attractive vegetarian or vegan options in the canteen every day has more effect.”
“You don't have to persuade all employees by the way. Focus on a critical mass of informal leaders. If you get them to go along, then rest will automatically follow.”
Radboud Impact Day
On Thursday 18 November 2021, the week before Black Friday, Radboud University will conduct a one-day national campaign to urge people to think about their consumer behaviour and how they can impact the future through education and research.
You can help to make a difference. Do you want to know how? More information
Text: Inès Aoun. This article previously appeared on Susanova. Photo: Markus Spiske via Unsplash.